What do you think?

I think we do, but then a law, and not some BS religious crap.

I think I feel more comfortable with going to jail or getting a ticket then burning in hell forever.

I'm not sure what you'rre asking. Do you mean "Do we need an abiloity to know that rape and murder is wrong?" If so, then yes.

Define "morals". If possible in length.

Why don't you add "ethics" to the title, as well (if that is what you mean). I believe there has been a lot of debate here as to what morals are.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I'm not sure what you'rre asking. Do you mean "Do we need an abiloity to know that rape and murder is wrong?" If so, then yes.

You mean 'ability', right?

I think each individual man has the ability to make his own morals for himself. I dont think they should be opposed on others, and you should go out of your time to follow your peers morals. Written morals are from just when stupid cavemen didnt know how to think for them selves, and whent up to either the oldest man or hottest chick and asked what they should do, then some guy named hamarabi was tired of telling people what to do so he wrote it on a rock.

rationalism thats morals, we are born to be human, that means we dont harm each other and we dont do unhuman things like raping each other. the only reason that happends is because laws and morals today oppress peoples feelings and borders, so much that in the end for some people they explode and the people becomes crazy and do shit stuff. what we need todo is to remove "morals" and silly "laws" we could test them in isolated collectives and i actually thing it will work.

There is a huge difference between "morals" and "laws." I think we need the former, not the latter.

I think we need codes of interaction. Agreement on what's the proper way to interact given the circumstance.

Afterall, we humans are social and interdependant individuals. Then agian, this applies as well to economy so if we rationally make the law system crumble for agreeing that all we need is norms, without the need for an entity to enforce them (lawls), and that we as individuals within a community can agree on them, then, this very same rationale applies to economic organization.

This is a basic interaction premise for me:

So long as all the parties involved in a relationship of any kind are aware entirely of the origins, implications and conditions of said relationship and are entirely consensual, that is they set and agree with the former, then that relationship is correct. Shall the relationship involve unaware, deceived and/or unconsenting parties, that is, ignorance, coercion and/or deception, that relationship shall not be accepted and members of a certain community aware of this situation, outside of this relationship, may intervent to assist ignorant, deceived and/or coerced parties into get rid of said limitations.

That's what morals and norms are for, aren't they? To establish the kind of interaction between the individuals of a certain community. If so, I think that premise pretty much covers in general any kind of relationship from economic to personal love realtionships.